Next Article in Journal
Bioinformatic Analysis of Secondary Metabolite Biosynthetic Potential in Pathogenic Fusarium
Next Article in Special Issue
Talaromyces amestolkiae Infection in an AIDS Patient with Cryptococcal Meningitis
Previous Article in Journal
In Planta Study Localizes an Effector Candidate from Austropuccinia psidii Strain MF-1 to the Nucleus and Demonstrates In Vitro Cuticular Wax-Dependent Differential Expression
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Molecular Detection of Candida auris Using DiaSorin Molecular Simplexa® Detection Kit: A Diagnostic Performance Evaluation

1
Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-Based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
2
Centro de Investigaciones en Microbiología y Biotecnología-CIMBIUR (UR), Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá 200433, Colombia
3
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2023, 9(8), 849; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9080849
Submission received: 13 July 2023 / Revised: 4 August 2023 / Accepted: 9 August 2023 / Published: 15 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Molecular Diagnosis of Fungal Disease)

Abstract

:
Candida auris is a globally emerging fungal pathogen that is associated with healthcare-related infections. The accurate and rapid detection of C. auris is crucial for effective infection prevention, control, and patient management. This study aimed to validate the analytical and diagnostic performance of the DiaSorin Molecular C. auris Detection Kit. The analytical specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility of the assay were evaluated. The limit of detection (LOD) was determined to be 266 CFU/µL using the ZeptoMetrix Candida auris Z485 strain and standard calibration curves. The assay demonstrated high analytical specificity and showed no amplification against a diverse panel of bacteria and fungi. Clinical validation was conducted using deidentified residual axillary/groin surveillance culture specimens from C. auris culture-positive and culture-negative patients. The DiaSorin Molecular Detection Kit exhibited 100% agreement in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) when compared to cultures coupled with MALDI-TOF identification. Intra- and inter-reproducibility testing demonstrated consistent and reliable diagnostic performance. This validated assay offers rapid and accurate detection of C. auris, facilitating timely implementation of infection control measures and appropriate patient care. The DiaSorin Molecular C. auris Detection Kit has the potential to aid in controlling the outbreaks caused by this emerging fungal pathogen. Providing a reliable diagnostic tool can contribute to the effective management and containment of C. auris infections in healthcare settings and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

1. Introduction

Candida auris is an emerging fungal pathogen that has been reported in various regions of the world, including Asia, Europe, South America, and North America. The first documented case of C. auris infection was reported in Japan in 2009, and subsequently, the fungus rapidly disseminated globally [1]. C. auris is frequently associated with healthcare-associated infections, particularly among individuals with underlying medical conditions, prolonged hospitalization, or exposure to invasive medical devices [2]. The fungus can colonize diverse anatomical sites in patients, including the skin, gastrointestinal tract, and other mucosal surfaces, which poses challenges in terms of containment within healthcare facilities [3,4]. Candida auris was first documented in the United States in 2016 and has since emerged as a severe healthcare-associated infection. As reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in January 2023, there have been more than 1800 confirmed cases of C. auris in the United States, with most cases originating in healthcare settings (CDC, 2023). C. auris infections have been identified in multiple states, including New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, and Texas (CDC, 2023).
One of the most concerning features of C. auris is its high resistance to multiple classes of antifungal drugs, including azoles, echinocandins, and polyenes, which are commonly used in the treatment of fungal infections [5,6,7]. Some C. auris isolates have demonstrated resistance to all three major classes of antifungal drugs [5]. This resistance poses significant challenges in the management of C. auris infections and contributes to poor patient outcomes, highlighting the urgent need for effective control and treatment strategies.
Moreover, there is significant concern due to the occurrence of outbreaks of multidrug-resistant Candida auris infections in specific regions, including Florida (USA), India, and Germany, during 2020–2021. These outbreaks are potentially attributed to lapses in infection control and surveillance practices, influenced in part by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic [8,9,10]. Recognizing the potential for outbreaks and the complexities associated with controlling C. auris infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have categorized C. auris as an urgent threat to public health (CDC 2023). Ongoing surveillance and research are essential to gaining a comprehensive understanding of the epidemiology and transmission dynamics of this emerging fungal pathogen. Additionally, these efforts aimed to develop effective prevention and control strategies.
Diagnosing Candida auris infection presents challenges due to its non-specific clinical manifestations and resemblance in culture to other Candida species [11,12]. Furthermore, conventional diagnostic approaches, such as culture-based methods, are time-consuming and exhibit low sensitivity, particularly in patients with prior antifungal therapy. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) has emerged as a valuable tool for the rapid identification of C. auris [13,14], with the caveat that not all reference databases may allow for the accurate detection of C. auris species and strains from all its phylogenetic clades. Alternatively, molecular-based methods have demonstrated enhanced sensitivity and specificity in C. auris detection using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays, enabling direct detection of C. auris in a variety of clinical specimens such as blood, urine, respiratory secretions, or wound swabs [15,16].
Alternative approaches utilizing swabs from various anatomical regions have been proposed and have shown promising results [17,18,19]. Recently, DiaSorin Molecular introduced a set of primers designed to detect C. auris DNA using the Simplexa® platform. However, to date, there have been no reports of the clinical validation of this kit or device. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of the DiaSorin Molecular Simplexa® platform for C. auris detection. For this, we used a panel of deidentified C. auris axilla/groin surveillance specimens collected by ESwab™ in liquid Amies medium (BD Diagnostics) and compared the results of our molecular assay to those obtained using conventional culture-based identification methods.
Our study provides valuable insights into the reliability and accuracy of the DiaSorin Molecular Simplexa® platform for detecting C. auris. Moreover, we underscore the potential utility of this platform in both clinical and public health settings. In addition, this study contributes to the growing body of knowledge regarding the implementation of molecular diagnostic tools for C. auris and supports the development of more effective strategies for timely detection and management of this emerging fungal pathogen.

2. Methods and Results

We employed the DiaSorin Molecular C. auris Detection Kit (Ref. MOL9059) to assess its analytical and diagnostic specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. The kit includes DiaSorin Molecular C. auris Primer Pair, which is an analyte-specific reagent designed to amplify a highly conserved region of the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) region of the rRNA gene of Candida auris. The primer pair consists of a forward primer, a reverse primer, and a FAM labeled probe, all in Tris-EDTA buffer. For proprietary reasons, the manufacturer does not disclose the specific sequence of the PCR target.
The ZeptoMetrix Candida auris Z485 strain (catalogue #0804386) (Zeptometrix®) was used to determine the analytical sensitivity. Each frozen aliquot contained 1 mL of a pure, titered culture of Candida auris, with organism identification confirmed by ITS2 sequencing as provided by the vendor. Standard calibration curves were generated using serial dilutions ranging from 2.6 × 106 CFU/µL to 2.6 × 10−3 CFU/µL to establish the limit of detection (LOD). The dilutions were prepared using deidentified residual axilla/groin C. auris surveillance culture specimens that were culture-negative and were then spiked with the ZeptoMetrix Candida auris Z485 strain standard. All serially diluted spiked specimens were tested using the conditions specified in the DiaSorin Molecular Kit insert. The reproducibility and performance characteristics of the test were assessed, including the LOD, which provided crucial information on the sensitivity and reliability of the DiaSorin Molecular C. auris Detection Kit.
The resulting Ct values of the calibration curve were plotted using linear regression and PROBIT regression to determine the limit of detection (LOD). The results indicated that the LOD, as determined by PROBIT regression, was 266 CFU/µL (Figure 1, Table 1). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed across the triplicates, indicating a high level of test reproducibility and calibration curve reliability (R2 > 0.980). Once the LOD was estimated, we conducted tests on three dilutions below the LOD that resulted in no amplification (Figure 1; Table 1). To assess the analytical specificity of the assay, we included a diverse panel of bacteria and fungi (Table 2), and no amplification was observed for any of the panels (Table 2).
The Clinical Microbiology Laboratory at Mount Sinai Health System routinely conducts microbiological diagnosis of C. auris using routine culture coupled with MALDI-TOF identification (Library 4.1.100 (PYTH) 188), as described by [20]. This combined approach serves as the gold standard for validation. To validate our molecular assay, we used deidentified residual axilla/groin specimens collected for surveillance culture for C. auris colonization using the ESwab™ in liquid Amies medium device. We evaluated deidentified ESwab™ specimens from 30 patients who were culture-positive for C. auris and 30 patients who tested culture-negative for C. auris. In all 60 cases, BD CultureSwab™ specimens had also been collected for culture. Routine culture and PCR (DiaSorin Molecular) results for all 60 samples and a comparison of both methodologies are presented in Table 3. In terms of diagnostic performance, we assessed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) using culture results as the gold standard. The results showed 100% agreement and complete concordance for all the aforementioned values. In addition, subcultures from ESwab™-collected samples that were positive by the molecular assay led to the successful isolation of C. auris in 100% of the cases. This aspect is important as it highlights the potential dual role of the ESwab™: first as a suitable collection device for molecular identification, and secondly, as a reliable source for subsequent culture-based retrieval.
To evaluate the diagnostic reproducibility of the DiaSorin Molecular Detection Kit, we conducted intra-reproducibility testing using nine positive (Positive by culture and further confirmed with MALDI-TOF) and nine negative (Negative by culture) samples, each run in triplicate during the same run. Inter-reproducibility testing was performed using three positive and three negative samples, each run on three different days. The results of these reproducibility tests are presented in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2. No statistically significant differences were observed in the resulting Ct values between the inter- and intra-reproducibility tests, indicating a high level of diagnostic reproducibility of the assay.

3. Discussion

Here, we present an evaluation of the analytical and diagnostic specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility of the DiaSorin Molecular C. auris Detection Kit. The analytical sensitivity, or limit of detection (LOD), was determined using standard calibration curves with cell-forming units of yeast (CFU). The results indicated that the LOD based on PROBIT regression ranged from 266 CFU/µL. Moreover, the assay demonstrated high reproducibility, with no statistically significant differences observed across triplicates. A diverse panel of bacteria and fungi was included to assess the analytical specificity of the assay, and the results revealed no amplification for any of the samples analyzed, indicating the ability of the assay to specifically detect C. auris.
Lastly, we evaluated diagnostic performance for the detection of C.auris in deidentified axilla/groin surveillance specimens. The main goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of the DiaSorin Molecular C. auris Detection Kit using skin samples for pathogen surveillance. However, it is essential to consider the potential need for evaluating this kit’s performance in blood and serum samples in the future. As a result, we acknowledge this as a limitation of our study and emphasize it as a potential avenue for future research.
The culture, coupled with MALDI-TOF identification, served as the gold standard. The results showed 100% sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), demonstrating the reliability of the DiaSorin Molecular C. auris Detection Kit.
When reviewing the available literature on direct PCR methods utilizing various sample types such as swabs, sponges, sputum, urine, and others, we found that most authors reported a limit of detection (LOD) ranging between 1 and 54 CFU/reaction, using genetic markers such as ITS2, ITS1/2, GPI, and Pyruvate synthase [21]. In our study, we determined an LOD of 266 CFU/µL, which is equivalent to approximately 26 CFU/reaction, indicating sufficient analytical sensitivity (Figure 1 and Table 1). Additionally, the clinical advantage offered by the DiaSorin Molecular assay lies in its ability to bypass the need for culturing and DNA extraction, a crucial step in other commercial and in-house PCR and routine clinical assays (Figure 2) [17,22]. This characteristic makes the implementation of the DiaSorin Molecular Kit in clinical settings more convenient, especially for C. auris outbreak surveillance.
Various in-house and commercial platforms have been developed to detect C. auris nucleic acids, demonstrating satisfactory sensitivity (89–100%) and specificity (85–100%) [23,24]. Compared to the reference method of culture coupled with MALDI-TOF identification, this assay exhibits high diagnostic accuracy, indicating its broad utility for rapid surveillance and diagnosis. The platform delivered results within two hours of swab collection, further enhancing its clinical utility. Additionally, no cross-reactivity with a wide range of commensals and pathogens was observed (Table 2), which is often a limitation for other PCR platforms [23].
In conclusion, the DiaSorin Molecular C. auris Detection Kit exhibited outstanding analytical and diagnostic performances, demonstrating exceptional sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility. The remarkable diagnostic accuracy of the assay establishes it as a valuable tool for the detection of C. auris. The potential applications of this kit are extensive, making it a valuable tool for rapid surveillance of C. auris in both skin and healthcare settings. Moreover, its affordability and easy accessibility through the DiaSorin vendor further enhance its appeal. It is important to note that while this test is not FDA-approved, our laboratory has diligently evaluated its diagnostic performance and subsequently submitted the assay as an LDT (laboratory developed test) to the New York State Department of Health, USA, for clinical testing.
We would like to draw attention to some limitations of the assay. Firstly, we were unable to determine if the test could detect all the C. auris clades due to the manufacturer not disclosing the specific sequence of the PCR target. Additionally, we were unable to test all known Candida species, such as C. haemulonii. It is crucial for future studies to address this limitation by including more species for testing specificity.
Given that C. auris is a significant healthcare-associated infection necessitating prompt and precise diagnosis for effective patient management, the capabilities of this assay are of immense clinical value. Future efforts should now be directed towards designing multiplex assays that incorporate targets for antifungal resistance mutations. These assays would enable rapid screening of drug-resistant C. auris.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jof9080849/s1. Table S1: Intra-run Ct results for tested specimens; Table S2: Inter-run Ct results for tested specimens.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: J.D.R. and A.P.-M.; methodology: C.Y.W., D.B. and B.L.; Validation: J.D.R., A.P.-M. and E.M.S.; Investigation: J.D.R. and A.P.-M.; Resources: S.S., G.P., W.J., C.C.-C. and A.F.-B.; data curation: J.D.R.; writing-original draft preparation: J.D.R.; writing, review and editing: A.P.-M., C.Y.W., D.B., B.L., S.S., G.P., W.J., C.C.-C., A.F.-B., E.M.S. and A.P.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study involved only deidentified, coded specimens that were collected for clinical purposes and were not specifically collected for this project. Therefore, it does not meet the criteria for Human Subjects Research under the current guidance as stated in the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) Institutional Review Board (IRB) Guidance on Human Subject Research Determination (https://icahn.mssm.edu/files/ISMMS/Assets/Research/PPHS/HRP-901-Guidance-Human%20Subject%20Research%20Determination%20(12.15.2021).pdf).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data is within the manuscript and the Supporting Files.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Spivak, E.S.; Hanson, K.E. Candida auris: An Emerging Fungal Pathogen. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01588-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Tsay, S.; Welsh, R.M.; Adams, E.H.; Chow, N.A.; Gade, L.; Berkow, E.L.; Poirot, E.; Lutterloh, E.; Quinn, M.; Chaturvedi, S.; et al. Notes from the Field: Ongoing Transmission of Candida auris in Health Care Facilities—United States, June 2016–May 2017. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2017, 66, 514–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Satoh, K.; Makimura, K.; Hasumi, Y.; Nishiyama, Y.; Uchida, K.; Yamaguchi, H. Candida auris sp. nov., a novel ascomycetous yeast isolated from the external ear canal of an inpatient in a Japanese hospital. Microbiol. Immunol. 2009, 53, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zaoutis, T.E.; Argon, J.; Chu, J.; Berlin, J.A.; Walsh, T.J.; Feudtner, C. The Epidemiology and Attributable Outcomes of Candidemia in Adults and Children Hospitalized in the United States: A Propensity Analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2005, 41, 1232–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Jacobs, S.E.; Jacobs, J.L.; Dennis, E.K.; Taimur, S.; Rana, M.; Patel, D.; Gitman, M.; Patel, G.; Schaefer, S.; Iyer, K.; et al. Candida auris Pan-Drug-Resistant to Four Classes of Antifungal Agents. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2022, 66, e0005322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lockhart, S.R.; Etienne, K.A.; Vallabhaneni, S.; Farooqi, J.; Chowdhary, A.; Govender, N.P.; Colombo, A.L.; Calvo, B.; Cuomo, C.A.; Desjardins, C.A.; et al. Simultaneous Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant Candida auris on 3 Continents Confirmed by Whole-Genome Sequencing and Epidemiological Analyses. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 64, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Vallabhaneni, S.; Kallen, A.; Tsay, S.; Chow, N.; Welsh, R.; Kerins, J.; Kemble, S.K.; Pacilli, M.; Black, S.R.; Landon, E.; et al. Investigation of the First Seven Reported Cases of Candida auris, a Globally Emerging Invasive, Multidrug-Resistant Fungus-United States, May 2013–August 2016. Am. J. Transplant. 2017, 17, 296–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Janniger, E.J.; Kapila, R. Public health issues with Candida auris in COVID-19 patients. World Med. Health Policy 2021, 13, 766–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hinrichs, C.; Wiese-Posselt, M.; Graf, B.; Geffers, C.; Weikert, B.; Enghard, P.; Aldejohann, A.; Schrauder, A.; Knaust, A.; Eckardt, K.; et al. Successful control of Candida auris transmission in a German COVID-19 intensive care unit. Mycoses 2022, 65, 643–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rajni, E.; Singh, A.; Tarai, B.; Jain, K.; Shankar, R.; Pawar, K.; Mamoria, V.; Chowdhary, A. A High Frequency of Candida auris Blood Stream Infections in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Units, Northwestern India: A Case Control Study. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2021, 8, ofab452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Kathuria, S.; Singh, P.K.; Sharma, C.; Prakash, A.; Masih, A.; Kumar, A.; Meis, J.F.; Chowdhary, A. Multidrug-Resistant Candida auris Misidentified as Candida haemulonii: Characterization by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization—Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry and DNA Sequencing and Its Antifungal Susceptibility Profile Variability by Vitek 2, CLSI Broth Microdilution, and Etest Method. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015, 53, 1823–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Diezmann, S.; Cox, C.J.; SchÖnian, G.; Vilgalys, R.J.; Mitchell, T.G. Phylogeny and evolution of medical species of Candida and related taxa: A multigenic analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 5624–5635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Grenfell, R.C.; Junior, A.R.d.S.; Del Negro, G.M.B.; Munhoz, R.B.; Gimenes, V.M.F.; Assis, D.M.; Rockstroh, A.C.; Motta, A.L.; Rossi, F.; Juliano, L.; et al. Identification of Candida haemulonii Complex Species: Use of ClinProToolsTM to Overcome Limitations of the Bruker BiotyperTM, VITEK MSTM IVD, and VITEK MSTM RUO Databases. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Mizusawa, M.; Miller, H.; Green, R.; Lee, R.; Durante, M.; Perkins, R.; Hewitt, C.; Simner, P.J.; Carroll, K.C.; Hayden, R.T.; et al. Can Multidrug-Resistant Candida auris Be Reliably Identified in Clinical Microbiology Laboratories? J. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 55, 638–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Yamamoto, M.; Alshahni, M.M.; Tamura, T.; Satoh, K.; Iguchi, S.; Kikuchi, K.; Mimaki, M.; Makimura, K. Rapid Detection of Candida auris Based on Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP). J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e00591-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Kordalewska, M.; Zhao, Y.; Lockhart, S.R.; Chowdhary, A.; Berrio, I.; Perlin, D.S. Rapid and Accurate Molecular Identification of the Emerging Multidrug-Resistant Pathogen Candida auris. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 55, 2445–2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Walchak, R.C.; Buckwalter, S.P.; Zinsmaster, N.M.; Henn, K.M.; Johnson, K.M.; Koelsch, J.M.; Herring, S.A.; Steinmetz, L.K.; Reed, K.A.; Barth, J.E.; et al. Candida auris Direct Detection from Surveillance Swabs, Blood, and Urine Using a Laboratory-Developed PCR Method. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sexton, D.J.; Kordalewska, M.; Bentz, M.L.; Welsh, R.M.; Perlin, D.S.; Litvintseva, A.P. Direct Detection of Emergent Fungal Pathogen Candida auris in Clinical Skin Swabs by SYBR Green-Based Quantitative PCR Assay. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01337-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Bayona, J.V.M.; García, C.S.; Palop, N.T.; Cardona, C.G. Validation and implementation of a commercial real-time PCR assay for direct detection of Candida auris from surveillance samples. Mycoses 2021, 64, 612–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Černáková, L.; Roudbary, M.; Brás, S.; Tafaj, S.; Rodrigues, C.F. Candida auris: A Quick Review on Identification, Current Treatments, and Challenges. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 4470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dennis, E.K.; Chaturvedi, S.; Chaturvedi, V. So Many Diagnostic Tests, So Little Time: Review and Preview of Candida auris Testing in Clinical and Public Health Laboratories. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 757835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Leach, L.; Zhu, Y.; Chaturvedi, S. Development and Validation of a Real-Time PCR Assay for Rapid Detection of Candida auris from Surveillance Samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01223-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Lima, A.; Widen, R.; Vestal, G.; Uy, D.; Silbert, S. A TaqMan Probe-Based Real-Time PCR Assay for the Rapid Identification of the Emerging Multidrug-Resistant Pathogen Candida auris on the BD Max System. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2019, 57, e01604-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Malczynski, M.; Dowllow, N.; Rezaeian, S.; Rios, J.; Dirnberger, L.; Zembower, J.A.; Zhu, A.; Qi, C. Optimizing a real-time PCR assay for rapid detection of Candida auris in nasal and axillary/groin samples. J. Med. Microbiol. 2020, 69, 824–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Dynamic range of Ct values for C. auris detection to determine the limit of detection (LOD).
Figure 1. Dynamic range of Ct values for C. auris detection to determine the limit of detection (LOD).
Jof 09 00849 g001
Figure 2. Candida auris diagnostic algorithm depicting testing method workflow differences and their impact on in-laboratory turn-around times. In red is highlighted the routine diagnostic workflow, and in yellow is the proposed workflow using the DiaSorin detection kit.
Figure 2. Candida auris diagnostic algorithm depicting testing method workflow differences and their impact on in-laboratory turn-around times. In red is highlighted the routine diagnostic workflow, and in yellow is the proposed workflow using the DiaSorin detection kit.
Jof 09 00849 g002
Table 1. Ct results for C. auris detection and internal control (SEAC) using Eswab as a matrix.
Table 1. Ct results for C. auris detection and internal control (SEAC) using Eswab as a matrix.
C. auris
Dilution
C. auris
(FAM)
SEAC
(Q670)
C. auris
(FAM)
SEAC
(Q670)
C. auris
(FAM)
SEAC
(Q670)
2.66 × 106 CFU/µL21.631.422.632.622.531.6
2.66 × 105 CFU/µL25.230.325.531.525.530.5
2.66 × 104 CFU/µL29.230.629.931.429.130.7
2.66 × 103 CFU/µL3431.43332.132.731
2.66 × 102 CFU/µL36.731.436.332.236.531.2
2.66 × 101 CFU/µL031.7032.1031.3
2.66 × 100 CFU/µL031.5032.4031.5
2.66 × 10−1 CFU/µL031.5032.3031.5
2.66 × 10−2 CFU µL031.3031.9031.2
2.66 × 10−3 CFU/µL031.5032.1031.2
Table 2. Ct results for C. auris detection over several microorganisms tested.
Table 2. Ct results for C. auris detection over several microorganisms tested.
Sample IDOrganismC. auris
(FAM)
SEAC
(Q670)
Result
CAIDNA001Staphylococcus aureusNaN31.5Not Detected
CAIDNA002Moraxella catarrhalisNaN31.7Not Detected
CAIDNA003Nocardia farcinicaNaN31.6Not Detected
CAIDNA004Streptococcus immitisNaN31.7Not Detected
CAIDNA005Candida lusitaniaeNaN31.3Not Detected
CAIDNA006Candida kefyrNaN31.8Not Detected
CAIDNA007Candida tropicalisNaN31.7Not Detected
CAIDNA008Candida guillermondiNaN32.4Not Detected
CAIDNA009Candida kruseiNaN32.5Not Detected
CAIDNA010Candida parapsilosisNaN31.6Not Detected
CAIDNA011Candida glabrataNaN31.5Not Detected
CAIDNA012Phaeoanellomyces werneckiiNaN31.5Not Detected
CAIDNA014Tricophyton rubrumNaN32.1Not Detected
CAIDNA015T. tonsuransNaN32Not Detected
CAIDNA016FusariumNaN32.1Not Detected
CAIDNA019PenicilliumNaN31.6Not Detected
CAIDNA020Aspergillus nigerNaN31.5Not Detected
CAIDNA021Propionibacterium acnesNaN31.6Not Detected
CAIDNA022Bacillus cereusNaN32Not Detected
CAIDNA023M. abscessusNaN31.6Not Detected
CAIDNA024M. fortuitumNaN31.9Not Detected
CAIDNA025MACNaN32.3Not Detected
CAIDNA026Mycobacterium chelonaeNaN31.4Not Detected
CAIDNA027Enterococcus faeciumNaN31.6Not Detected
Table 3. Resulting Ct for the 60 samples used for the validation.
Table 3. Resulting Ct for the 60 samples used for the validation.
NumberSample IDC. auris
(FAM) Ct
SEAC
(Q670) Ct
PCR ResultCulture
Result
1CA00131.531DetectedDetected
2CA00232.129.5DetectedDetected
3CA00326.828.2DetectedDetected
4CA00436.628.3DetectedDetected
5CA00529.627.7DetectedDetected
6CA00628.326.1DetectedDetected
7CA00728.127.4DetectedDetected
8CA00825.929.3DetectedDetected
9CA0093926.8DetectedDetected
10CA01026.127.4DetectedDetected
11CA01124.226.9DetectedDetected
12CA01233.927.9DetectedDetected
13CA01430.628.6DetectedDetected
14CA01622.428.1DetectedDetected
15CA0222527.5DetectedDetected
16CA02321.228.2DetectedDetected
17CA02437.428.9DetectedDetected
18CA02523.227.5DetectedDetected
19CA02637.630.1DetectedDetected
20CA04722.427.6DetectedDetected
21CA05923.129.6DetectedDetected
22CA06019.331.3DetectedDetected
23CA06126.530DetectedDetected
24CA06220.231.6DetectedDetected
25CA06332.529.7DetectedDetected
26CA06428.329.5DetectedDetected
27CA0652329.7DetectedDetected
28CA0662629.7DetectedDetected
29CA07020.331.3DetectedDetected
30CA07728.129.6DetectedDetected
31CA08230.929.5DetectedDetected
32CA021NaN28.3Not DetectedNot Detected
33CA027NaN28Not DetectedNot Detected
34CA028NaN27.8Not DetectedNot Detected
35CA029NaN28Not DetectedNot Detected
36CA030NaN27.9Not DetectedNot Detected
37CA031NaN28Not DetectedNot Detected
38CA032NaN29.2Not DetectedNot Detected
39CA033NaN27.3Not DetectedNot Detected
40CA034NaN27.8Not DetectedNot Detected
41CA035NaN27.5Not DetectedNot Detected
42CA036NaN27.6Not DetectedNot Detected
43CA037NaN27.8Not DetectedNot Detected
44CA038NaN27.9Not DetectedNot Detected
45CA039NaN27.8Not DetectedNot Detected
46CA040NaN28Not DetectedNot Detected
47CA041NaN29.6Not DetectedNot Detected
48CA042NaN27.6Not DetectedNot Detected
49CA043NaN27.5Not DetectedNot Detected
50CA044NaN28Not DetectedNot Detected
51CA045NaN27.9Not DetectedNot Detected
52CA046NaN29.6Not DetectedNot Detected
53CA049NaN27.8Not DetectedNot Detected
54CA050NaN27.7Not DetectedNot Detected
55CA051NaN29.5Not DetectedNot Detected
56CA055NaN29.8Not DetectedNot Detected
57CA068NaN29.7Not DetectedNot Detected
58CA067NaN29.8Not DetectedNot Detected
59CA069NaN29.4Not DetectedNot Detected
60CA071NaN29.3Not DetectedNot Detected
61CA072NaN29.8Not DetectedNot Detected
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramírez, J.D.; Wang, C.Y.; Bolton, D.; Liggayu, B.; Schaefer, S.; Patel, G.; Javaid, W.; Cordon-Cardo, C.; Firpo-Betancourt, A.; Sordillo, E.M.; et al. Molecular Detection of Candida auris Using DiaSorin Molecular Simplexa® Detection Kit: A Diagnostic Performance Evaluation. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 849. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9080849

AMA Style

Ramírez JD, Wang CY, Bolton D, Liggayu B, Schaefer S, Patel G, Javaid W, Cordon-Cardo C, Firpo-Betancourt A, Sordillo EM, et al. Molecular Detection of Candida auris Using DiaSorin Molecular Simplexa® Detection Kit: A Diagnostic Performance Evaluation. Journal of Fungi. 2023; 9(8):849. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9080849

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramírez, Juan David, Chin Yi Wang, Deandra Bolton, Bernadette Liggayu, Sarah Schaefer, Gopi Patel, Waleed Javaid, Carlos Cordon-Cardo, Adolfo Firpo-Betancourt, Emilia Mia Sordillo, and et al. 2023. "Molecular Detection of Candida auris Using DiaSorin Molecular Simplexa® Detection Kit: A Diagnostic Performance Evaluation" Journal of Fungi 9, no. 8: 849. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9080849

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop